I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools and I also feel like they should be paid more for the services that they are offering to the community that they are engaged in. Teachers are raising the future engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. But they are not being paid anywhere near as much as the students they are teaching go on to make in those professions. In the mean time, Floyd Mayweather is earning $83,000 per second to beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp in his fights. I feel like America is really placing an emphasis more on sports and entertainment achievement than rewarding those who are actually contributing to the future scholars of America.

You have argued that more funding should be allocated to teachers in order for them to achieve more of their goals and yet more than enough funds have been allocated to the education department for that purpose. In such countries as Zimbabwe, some kids dont even have a clue as to what a computer looks like and yet they have the highest literacy rate in Africa. Now if you compare the funding of the United States to that of Zimbabwe you find that we actually have an excess of funds and there really arent any needs to match those. Why should government waste resources on satisfying contented wants of the teachers. There is no need to augment the wages of the teaching staff. What they do is out of passion and not the love of money. So what if Floyd is earning $83k per sec. Its his job to wow the millions of enthusiasts that watch across the world and these enthusiasts also include a sizeable number of teachers...He is bringing in a large volume of foreign revenue through boxing yet the teacher is bringing nothing more than boredom to a small uninterested class. If a teacher would get as much as an engineer, who do you think would want to go to varsity for some challenging task when you can just get a teaching degree in college and get just as much cash..clearly this motion does not stand

I wrote that "I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools" because many teachers are ending up in positions where they want to do projects that they end up having to fund out of pocket, and they have materials also that they have to fund out of pocket. Literacy rates are fine and dandy, but they are not a direct reflection of the needs of a society. A spacecraft or a power grid isn't run by a book, it's run by a computer. But that's a literacy vs computer knowledge debate hardly related to my topic. We can't compare apples to oranges here, every country has different demands and needs. I didn't argue that women here should be afraid to educate themselves because they're afraid that rebels will stone them to death for stepping outside of moral boundaries, because those aren't issues related to our women. Let's focus on a fact based on America. The average K-12 teacher (in America, not Zimbabwe) earns $44,600. Average student loans of a college student in America is over $30,000. Many teachers struggle to pay back the loans required to educate their students. Sure, what they do is out of passion and not the love of money. But why does that mean that they shouldn't be afforded a living that better rewards them for their passion? The way you state "just get a teaching degree" is part of the problem with America. If teachers don't exist, neither do Engineers, Lawyers, Etc. It's time to realize that a good education in ANY degree involves teachers and educators.

You really cant blame government for what goes on in the teaching field. Its not the fault of the education secretary that teachers have to fish some money out of their pockets...the reason for that is the capitalism of the US in which whoever is responsible for the allocation of funds chooses which schools to enrich first before throwing the crumps to low-income public schools. In a March, 2015 article, Vox.com reported that the US spends over 600billion dollars on the education sector...this is compounded by the forbes mag report of over 800 billion dollars( blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2011/04/usgs_bar.jpg ) However, in spite of all that, the performance of US kids has not improved, The US has got the highest annual spending per kid but in Math and Science international tests, the kids still do not fair well ( https://rossieronline.usc.edu... ) If we look at it from the viewpoint of government itself, Education Secretary Arne Duncan bluntly admits that increased spending has failed to better the results. Teachers should be rewarded for their passion, thts why we have things like incentives and bonuses...Education may only be improved through restrategising. We are not undermining the value of teachers here, yes engineers wouldnt be there if there were no teachers, but as well engineers would not be there if teachers wages were raised to the astronomical levels you so desire. What I am arguing is that, since teaching is a much easier(important as it is) profession, people would go for teaching alternatively and noone would worry about being an engineer and stuff like that. We'd all just go to school and be taught to teach, because at the end of the day, we get rewarded the same. So teachers are important and yes they should be rewarded but lets be rational about it. Enough is as good as a feast to one thats not a beast...the old adage goes

Your starting argument may sound fine and dandy to those who do not know that a public school is funded and run by the local government (private school funding as a whole is generally not struggling due to tuition and private donations, I should be clear that this discussion does not apply to private schools nearly as much). Public schools are generally a direct reflection of the success of the local government in which they are placed. So if they live in a poor and impoverished neighborhood, their students given the supplies to match, but that's a separate debate (whether or not the allocation of finances is fair throughout all communities). Only a fool would look at increased spending as a whole and say "okay now, it hasn't worked". If the average CEO has a record year of sales and brings in more profit than ever recorded, does it go straight to the employers? No. He reinvests in his company for growth, he raises the exec pay rates, he gets bonuses and a new car, THEN MAYBE whatever is left over goes to his employees 2-5% yearly raise (which is generally what they get regardless of the amount of excess funding). Point being ALLOCATION OF FUNDING should be the focus. Not a flat fact of "people got more money", it doesn't pan out. Cost of spending per student DOES NOT mean that those children or their teachers got that funding directly. They simply said X amount when somewhere, and we have Y amount of student, and they created that statistic with division. It DOES NOT mean the funds were allocated to the teacher salary of the students resources. I agree with "teachers should be rewarded for their passion through incentives and bonuses. But how many public schools offer those and in which amounts? I'd love to see those statistics, I had a hard time finding them. I appreciate you agreeing with my point in the importance of teachers with regard to the training of other professions. And if there was an easy way to truly reward good teachers and punish bad ones with incentives, then great. But I feel that raising all teachers pay would eliminate the use of politics for others to get ahead, rather than performance. And for those who under-perform, give 'em the boot.

I do not believe that Secretary Duncan will appreciate you calling him a fool. The government admits that more spending has failed because that is the truth. The desire to teach or the determination to dosl is not fueled by the amount of money you have in the pocket. Regardless of the size of your wallet, you can do wonders with careful planning. Look at it this way, X has ten dollars, Y has twenty bucks, X buys a textbook, and Y buys McDonalds, and then just a couple of pens. Its not the amount given to each that has mattered, its what has been done with it. Now after noticing that Y had more money but was unproductive with it, shall we increase the allowance to Y? Over our stinking corpses would we ever do that. The point is, the teaching process is failinggiven the huge amount of funding it is allocated. Why then should we risk losing more cash to it. Until there is a sizeable change in results, we cannot have government spend more money on unresponsive works. Lets be realists please. Moreover, your statement, " Point
being ALLOCATION OF FUNDING should be the focus." clearly shows that you have derailed from the topic which you set for yourself because now you are no longer saying that teachers should be paid more, but that what teachers are already paid should be distributed evenly. Furthermore, you need to understand that we are not living in Disneyland where dreams can be achieved simply by the snap of your fingers. Politics in education is an undying cancer and increasing the money allocated to education will lead to this cancer multiplying mitotically. In other words, your argument presents no real solution to the Ebola crisis we have in education. I therefore do say, in closing, that your argument is only but a fish out of water simply struggling, suffocating and now, dying. Thank you for your time